Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Sathish R, S/O C Rajendra – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Finance Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court cannot interfere with confirmed auction sales without fraud. (Para 1 , 9) |
| 2. petitioner claims loan not non-performing. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. dispute over compliance with interim order on loan payment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 12) |
| 4. petitioner argues about undervaluation and npa wrongly declared. (Para 6 , 11 , 15) |
| 5. failure to exhaust remedies before the drt limits court's intervention. (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
ORDER :
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
IN WP.NO.25242/2022
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to:-
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned Sale confirmation Letter vide Annexure-"A" dated 02.12.2022 and
b) To direct the respondent not confirm the sale in favour of third party.
c) To direct the respondent not to execute the sale certificate in favour of third party/ auction purchaser.
d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.12.2016, Mortgage Loan was sanctioned i.e., a sum of Rs.1,00,87,000/-. The said loa
A loan classified as Non-Performing Asset must adhere to criteria set by the Reserve Bank of India; effective alternative remedies must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Point of Law : It is settled proposition that an order of the Court should cause prejudice to none. In view of the stay granted by this Court, which continues till today, no blame can be laid at door....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, highlighting the requirement for the purchaser to pay ....
Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rendered the writ petition not mainta....
The court emphasized the need for justifiable actions by the bank in the auction process and the importance of compliance with the SARFAESI Act provisions.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements is imperative in mortgage auctions; failures may invalidate the sale, preserving the mortgagor's right of redemption until formal sale registration.
The right of redemption is available to the mortgagor until the sale is complete by registration of sale, and the violation of statutory rules may entitle the borrower to redeem the property.
Auction sale under SARFAESI Act upheld; simultaneous civil proceedings do not invalidate the completed transaction, and allegations of undervaluation found unsubstantiated.
The court held that when a statute provides specific remedies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised, affirming the precedence of statutory procedures over equitable remedies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
